PRESENT: [ION. THOMAS J. McNAMARA Acting Justice STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ALBANY LISA THRUN, JUDITH FORD and AVA ASHENDORFF, DECISION & ORDER lndeno.: 4358-11 Plaintiffs, RJI No.: 01-11-104776 -against AM)REVV IVLCUOMO. AS GOVERNOR OF TUE STATE OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION; and NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Defendants. (Supreme Court, Albany County, Motion Term) APPEARANCES: Smith Valliere, PLLC (By: Mark W. Smith, Esq., and Noelle Kowalczyk. Esq., of Counsel) 75 Rockefeller Plaza, 21st Floor New York, New York 10019 and Sam Kazman, Esq. Competitive Enterprise Institute 1899 [Street, NW Washington. D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Plainrifjs Eric T. Schneiderman Attorney General of the State of New York (By: Michael J. Myers, Esq. and Morgan A. Costello, Esq., Assistant Attorneys General Attorneys for Defendants Environmental Protection Bureau The ( apitol Albany, New York 12224-034 1
30 days written notice. Three additional States later signed the Memorandum and in January 2012 New The Memorandum allows for other States to sign Ofl and also provides that any Signatory State may (Memorandum) with the governors of six other States. In the Memorandum the seven signatory States each In December 2005 then-governor George Pataki signed a Memorandum of iderstanding MeNamara, J. committed: Index Nd.: 4358-11; Ru No.: 01-] 1-104776 Thrun, ci al v. ( uorno, ci a! - promulgate regulations targeting reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide that would apply to major DEC air quality requirements relating to offsetting of emissions and directed the Comniissioiir U generating ihcilities, those generating 25,000 kilowatts or more of electricity, to comply with applicable Power NY Act of 2011 (Environmental Conservation Law 19-0312). The act requires major electric action was taken to authorize New York s participation in RGGI though in 2011 the Legislature passed the by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (N SERI A). \o specitic iegis1ati e promulgated by the Department of Environmena1 Conservation (DEC) and the Auction Program regu1atims Program (21 NYCRR Part 507, eff. October 8, 2008), The Budget Trading Program regulations were Budget Trading Program (6 NYCRR Part 242, eff. September 24, 2008) and the CO, Allowance Auction New York affirmed its participation in RGGI by promulgating regulations that implement the CO, Jersey, one of the original Signatory States, ended its participation. withdraw its participation in the program, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), Upon States, and implementing a regional CO:, eniisssions budget and allowance trading program rated capacity equal to or greater than 25 megawatts. Program ) aimed at stabilizing and then reducing CO7 emissions within the Signatory that will regulate CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-fired electricity generating units hviag a to propose for legislative and/or regulatory approval a CO2 l3udget Trading Program (the
-3- electric generating facilities that commenced construction after the efièctive date of the regulations. At the time RGGI was the only state carbon dioxide emission requirement applicable to power plants in Ne York. addressed in some manner to the legality of Ne York s participation in RGGI. In the first cause of action plaintiffs argue that the New York RGG1 program is ultra vires because the Memorandum was executed, Legislature. The second cause of action presents an attack on the RGGI regulations as imposing an impermissible tax not authorized by the Legislature. In the third cause of action plaintiffs contend that the Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgments announcing that the entry of New York State into the RUGI was uliri created an unlawful tax and were arbitrary and capricious; and that the RGGI Memorandum is a multistate claims against the Governor and the Compact Clause claim, the notice of motion does not so limit the reliel compact which has not been authorized by the United States Congress and therefore, is void under thc defenses of standing and inches. At a minimum defendants specifically assert in the memorandum that all of whether the Memorandum violates the United States Constitution, Art I, 10, ci 3: the Compact Clause. RGGI program, as implemented, is arbitrary and capricious. The fourth cause of action raises the quesl1tn vires; that in promulgating the RGGI regulations the actions of DEC and NYSERDA were ultra virc, the applicable Statute of Limitations has expired, that certain claims are barred by the doctrine of laches and In June 2011 plaintiffs commenced this action in which they assert four causes of action: each hides No.: 4358-i!, RJI Wv.: 01-il -104776 Thrun, et il v. ( iwino, ci a! and the regulations were promulgated by DEC and NYSERI)A, without the consent or authorization of the sought and the arguments made in defendants memorandum of law do not exclude any claim from t-e that certain other claims are moot. Although plaintiffs maintain that defendants have not moved to dismiss Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that plaintiffs luck sariding, irat Compact Clause.
claims should be dismissed on laches grounds. must be particularized and the party asserting standing must show special damage, different in kind and degree from the community genernily (Ma.ier oj un-brzte ( ui Wash e Board of Zoning & 4ppeal, 69 NY2d 406, 413 [1987]). Moreover, the harm must he shown to fall within the zone of interests, or a showing that the party has suffered an injury-in-fact meaning that the party will actually he harmed by the Standing is a threshold requirement for a party seeking to challenge governmental action and requires challenged action (New York State Assn. o/ Nurse Anesihetists i Novello, 2 N3d 207 [20041). [he njur concerns, sought to be promoted or protected by the authority under which the agency has acted (Societi of increased costs passed along by electricity producers that must purchase CO allowances under RUGI. Even have failed to show an injury distinct from the community generally. While acknowledging that R(I(i impacts a large percentage of New York residents, plaintiffs maintain that as ratepayers they are general, and not whether, as plaintiffs argue, that some segment of the community is not affected (see that as ratepayers they have suffered an injury distinct from that of the general public, they cannot assert assuming that plaintiffs could show that the cost they pay for electricity has increased because of RUGI, they electricity hills. The question, however, is whether the impac[ is llt by sorie, but iiot the commn:v in Plastics indus. v County ofsu/jölk, 77 NY2d 761, 773 [1991], citation and internal quotations omitted>. Plaintiffs contend that as electric utility rate-payers they have been harmed by having to pai distinguishaole from the general public because there are members of the general public who do not pay Matter ofdiederich v Lawrence, 78 AD3d 1290 [20101, distinction between local taxpayers subjected to eliminate the requirement of a distinct injury (Id. at 1292). Inasmuch as plaintiffs have failed to establish Index No.. 4358-li; R,J[ No.. 01-1 1-104776 Thrun, ci a? i, ( uorno, et a! a tax and individuals not subjected to the tax fails). Such a strained interpretation would essentiail: -4-
Jhrun, ci al i. Cuomo, ei al Index No.: 4358-)!; Ri! No.. 01-11-104776 standing on the basis of that alleged harm. The argument that l)ec and NYSERDA usurped legislative authority in promulgating the R(IGI regulations raises another concern recognized by the courts in addressing standing issues. Claims ot institutional harm raised to ensure the continued vitality of the constraints on power that lie at the heart nt our constitutional scheme require additional analysis when determining standing see Saratoga (. ti;1t; C ho nhero/comrnerce i Puaki, 100 NY2d 801, 814 [2003]). In instances where denial of standing would, in effect, pose an impenetrable barriertojudicial scrutiny of an action ofconstitutional dimensions, standing may be found (Id. at 814). Here, however, as defendants note, the utility companies subject to the RGGI regulations are potentially interested parties who would have standing to bring a challenge to implemen wt on of the program. Thus. denial of standing to these plaintiffs does not shield the challenged actions froni judicial review. Though not pled in the complaint, plaintiffs assert that they have standing under State Finance law 123-b which provides:... any person, who is a citizen taxpayer, whether or not such person is or may be affected or specially aggrieved by the activity herein referred to, may maintain an action for equitable or declaratory relief or both, against an officer or employee of the state who in the coumse of his or her duties has caused. is now causing, or is about to cause a wrongful expenditure. misappropriation, misapplication. or any other 11 lega or utconsututijria disbinseme 01 state funds or state property... Citizen-taxpayers need not demonstrate an injur) -in-fact to acquire standing to question the unlawful expenditure of state funds (Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. Pa/aki. 100 NY2d 801, 814 [2004]). The important distinction in such matters is between cases that present a challenge to the expenditure of money and those that use the expenditure of money as a pretense to challenge a govcrnm;;tci -5-
decision (hi. at 814). The complaint here presents, generally, a challenge to New York s participation in NYSERDA to promulgate the RUGI regulations. Both are essentially non-fiscal activities and principles (Krieger v Krieger, 25 NY2d 364 [19691). Fhe Memorandum was signed in i)ecember 2005 and equity (Matter of Schulz v State u/new York, 81 NY2d 336, 348 [19931 jinternal quotation marks and or less great, and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, operates as a bar in a court of RGGE and specifically challenges the authority of the Governor to sign the Memorandum and DEC and planning decisions in reliance on having to meet a continuing compliance obligation. Power companies also point out the in-state power companies have made operational decisions and capital improvement York issued CO, allowances held by out-of-state power generatois and third-party investors. L)etendarts participation in RGGI would cause significant market uncertainty regarding the validity and value of New lawsuits from purchasers of allowances. Defendants also contend that invalidation of New York s be tinded witfl proceeds froni [hc sale of CO2 alto waiiccs. In addition. 1h: Staic ;ul face nuntcro9 RUG! would be lost including the Green Jobs/Green New York Program that the Legislature has directed consequence of this action. Defendants maintain that numerous projects that depend on proceeds from cause multifaceted prejudice to multiple parties if New York s participation in RGGI is invalidated ds a commence this action until June 2011. Defendants argue that plaintiffs delay in bringing this action 4oulJ the New York RGGI regulations became effective in September and October 2008. Plaintilis did not citation omittedi). An action fir a declaratory judgment, such as is present here, is subject to equitable defined as such neglect or omission to assert a right as, taken in conjunction with the lapse of time, moie Even if plaintiffs had standing, the doctrine of laches serves to bar the claims asserted. Lathes is consequently, section 123-b standing is not available. Index Au.: 4358-11, RJI No.: 01-11-104776 Thrzin, et a! v. C uurno, ci al -6-
iiirun, ci al ( uo,no, el a/ - lfltie.v No.. 4358-11; RJI No.: 01-11 )Q4 7 6 have made investments in their physical plants designed to reduce CO, emissions and in that way avoid the cost of having to purchase CO, allowances. Defendants contend that invalidation of New York s participation in RGGI would he prejudicial to these companies whose business models and strategic plans would be disrupted. Plaintiffs have not offered any reason for the delay in bringing the action. They argue. however. that any claim of prejudice i; either curable by an award oiprospecti\t: relief only or is undermined by the fact that the Memorandum provides that any Signatory State could withdraw from the agreement by providing 30 days notice. An award of prospective relief would not address all of the claimed prejudice such as disruption to the strategic plans of in-state power generators. And, while the possibility that New York could voluntarily withdraw from participation in RGGI has always existed. the risk of wi1hdrdwa based on a political decision is different in kind and degree from the risk posed by an end to participation based on legal reasons. The two risks present different considerations to those making decisions h sed on New York s participation in RGGI. The potential for harm to economic interest caused by the dela iii bringing this action is sufficiently prejudicial to the interest of adverse parties to bar the action (see,wiwr o/schulz v Stale o/ivew York, 81 N.Y.2d 336 [19931). Accordingly, t is ORDERED. that the motion to dismiss each cause of action in the complaint is granted on the grounds that plaintiffs lack standing to raise the claims and the claims are barred by the doctrine of laches. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. The original decision and order are returned to the attorney for defendants. A copy of the decision and order and the supporting papers have bei -7-
]hruii, el a! i. ( uomo, el al Index No.. 4358-11; Ru No.: (il-i l-1o4 6 delivered to the County Clerk for placement in the lile. The signing of this decision and order. and dclen of a copy of the decision and order shall not constitute entry or tiling under CPLR 2220. Counsel is not relieved from the applicable provisions of that rule respecting tiling, entry and notice of entry. SO ORDERED. ENTER Dated: Saratoga Springs, New York - June,2012,, ) Papers Considered: L1 homas J. cnamara Acting Supreme Court Justice I. Notice of Motion dated September 2,2011; 2. Affidavits Submitted in Support of Point IV of Defendants Motion to E)ismiss con:;isting of:: affidavil of Michael Sheehan; affidavit ot John G. Williams: affidavit of Pallas Lee VanSehaick; affirmation of Assistant Attorney General Michael J. Myers; afiidait OT Kenneth L. Kimmell; affidavit of Daniel C. Esty; affidavit of Collin P. OMara; affidavit of Robert M. Summers, Ph.D.; affidavit of Douglas L. McVay; aflidavit of.justin Johnson; affidavit of Robert D. Tcetz; and affidavit of Scott Lorey; 3. Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants Motion to Dismiss dated September 2. 2011, with Exhibits A and B annexed thereto; 4. Affidavit of Lisa Thrnn, sworn to November 30, 2011, with Exhibit I annexed thereto: 5. Affidavit of Judith Ford. sworn to No emher 29. 2011; 6. Affidavit of Ava Ashendorfi. sworn to November 30, 2011 7. Atfda4t ochristnphr S. Frieni. sworn o De ember 1. 2011, with Exhibits I nd 2 annexed thereto; 8. Affidavit of Daniel M. Engert, sworn to November 30.2011. with Exhibits 1 and 2 annexed thereto; 9. Affidavit of John Syracuse, sworn to November 30, 2011, with Exhibits 1 through 4 annexed thereto; 10. Appendix of Affidavits of New York Ratepayers in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss, Volumes I through 3; 11. Affirmation of Mark W. Smith, Esq., dated December 2. 2011. with Appendices of Exhibits 1 through 47; 12. Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants Motion to I)ismiss dated -8-
J hrun, el a! v. Cuomo, ci a! index No.: 4358-11; Ri! No.: 01-11-104776 December 2, 2011; and 13. Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants Motion to Dismiss dated.januarv 13, 2012, with Exhibit I annexed thereto. -9-